The workshops were scheduled throughout the year 2021 with different transition experiment teams (TE teams) and conducted as video conferences.

The transfer workshop of “Schools as Living Spaces Created Together” (SLS) was held on 18 June 2021, beginning at the town hall of the City of Dresden and continuing with on-site excursions to different schools in Dresden, Germany. The transfer workshop of “District Funds and Councils for Sustainable and Active Neighbourhoods” (DF) was held on 14 October 2021 at the Municipal District Office “Altstadt” of the City of Dresden.

Facilitator (Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development), TE team, research partners from the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development and the TUD Dresden University of Technology, respectively, community manager of the City of Dresden.

Facilitator (stadt:wirken), TE team, research partners from the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development, community manager of the City of Dresden, civil society actors, local politicians, public officials, teachers and pedagogues, landscape architects.

To support knowledge re-integration into societal practice, the TEs were encouraged to prepare handbooks in collaboration with the research partners.*1 In doing so, a wide understanding of handbooks was adopted, inviting the TEs to consider diverse formats such as living documents, tutorials or handbooks to best tailor these practical guidelines to their respective audience. Creating such handbooks was a voluntary process and seven TEs chose to participate in these handbook workshops. The handbooks provide guidelines for creating and implementing TEs and share reflections and lessons learned.

The idea of organising transfer workshops to encourage dialogue with the target groups and receive feedback on the handbooks was introduced by the TE teams “Schools as Living Spaces Created Together” (SLS) and “District Funds and Councils for Sustainable and Active Neighbourhoods” (DF). The transfer workshops were organised by the TE teams while the research partners adopted a supporting role.

A practical guideline for the societal context should be co-created by the researchers and the TE team (the citizens), whereby it was up to the TE teams to choose the appropriate format. A so-called handbook workshop was designed by the facilitator to support this process. Participants of the workshop were the TE team, its research partners and the community manager of DCF. The facilitator organised, moderated and documented the workshops, which were conducted with seven out of ten TEs. The workshops were all conducted online due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The handbook workshop drew on the various methods of product development, “backwards thinking” and brainstorming (Loibl 2001, Mitchell et al. 2015). Applying the method of “backwards thinking”, the facilitator opened the discussion with different questions related to the aims, the target group and the content of the handbook. This was followed by the method of silent brainstorming with subsequent group discussions. The ideas of the participants were clustered by the facilitator. In a final exchange, next steps were defined (see Fig. 2).

Figure 2.  

Template of the online whiteboard for the handbook workshops (translated into English).

The results were findings to be elaborated further. After the workshop, the responsibilities for writing and designing the handbook were divided between the TE team and the research partners.*3 Even though the agenda was always the same, each handbook workshop needed individual preparation by the facilitator.

Efficiency and effectiveness: Apply the approach of “backwards thinking” to define an aim and target group. All discussions were given an interesting shift by applying the approach of “backwards thinking”, namely by first identifying and then focusing on the aim. This offered clarity on which impacts were envisioned and helped to identify totally new target groups which had not previously been considered. For example, the TE “The Food Bin” initially wanted to write a “How to” for setting up initiatives against food waste. However, it became clear that this would not help achieve the aim of changing the legal framework conditions, which serve to hinder such initiatives in Germany. The target group then shifted to politicians. The handbook of “The Food Bin” now includes scientific data on barriers for civil society initiatives against food waste and describes the experiences of the TE team. It outlines which political and legal changes would help overcome these barriers. As the practice partners have better access to and a better understanding of the target group, their perception should be given priority. Moreover, as the message would be diluted if multiple target groups were addressed in parallel, it was vital for the facilitator to encourage the participants to define a specific aim and focus on one specific target group for the handbook.

Active participation on equal terms: Integrate the creation of a handbook in the project plan and cooperation agreement, as well as earmark resources for both scientists and practitioners so they can both equally join the co-productive process. In DCF, the handbook was specified in the research agenda of the research partners, but not in the agenda of the TE teams. This is why several TE teams struggled to find personnel capacities for the joint creation of a handbook. However, if a handbook is to be co-produced for societal contexts, this needs particular commitment from practitioners, who possess contextualised, local knowledge and, therefore, know best how to address the target group. The role of the research partners was to provide research insights and lessons learned or to give feedback on the handbook.

Space for conflict mediation: Discuss questions of authorship openly. The TE team “District Funds and Councils for Sustainable and Active Neighbourhoods” (DF) had a strong sense of ownership, having integrated a handbook into their own project plan as a work package. While the research partners promoted the idea of knowledge co-creation, the TE team voiced scepticism, fearing knowledge extractivism and the loss of ownership of the institutional innovation they were to develop. The research partners, therefore, initiated a meeting to discuss their concerns and asked them to make a proposal of how they would like the authorship of the handbook to be defined. To underline and value their efforts, the authorship of the handbook remained with the TE team and the proposal was appended to the minutes of the meeting to create transparency and reassurance for all partners.

Decide carefully which conflicts can and cannot be part of the handbook workshop. Define realistic expectations for conflict mediation and also acknowledge otherness. The understanding of co-creation differed between the TE team “Edible Public Urban Green Space – Tended by Citizens” (EPS) and the research partners. While the TE team wanted to have a more active role in transdisciplinary research and perceived cooperation not to be based on equal terms, the research partners wanted to have more scope of action to integrate their own research interests into the research design. The handbook workshop is for planning a handbook. It can handle some diverging views (which are also normal for real-world laboratories) and still create a working atmosphere, but it is not a space for intensive conflict mediation. If such conflicts are more fundamental in nature, one should consider external conflict mediation to create an appropriate setting for the workshop itself and for cooperation more generally. For EPS, the question of co-creation on equal terms could not be resolved. It is, therefore, important to acknowledge that resistance is part of cooperation in TDR settings and not all interests can be reconciled. Otherness should also be accepted and critical voices be appreciated. Given this situation, the research partners drafted the handbook, while the TE team provided feedback. This was the modus operandi to which both partners could agree, while truth claims continued to diverge.

Research ethics: Use the handbook to acknowledge the work of the TEs and make results visible. Even though the TE ”Week of the Good Life” (WL) could obtain approval for a mobility experiment in March 2021, which was scheduled for May 2021, the experiment could not be implemented due to COVID-19 restrictions. This raised the question of how to interpret this development and showed how the truth claims of science and practice partners diverged. Promoting a logic of experimenting and learning-by-failing, the research partners argued that the TE was successful because a legal example of conducting such a mobility experiment could be created. By contrast, the TE team intended to promote change and implement the WL and, therefore, perceived the cancellation as a failure. Creating the handbook made it possible to still show the work done (e.g. process of approving the mobility experiment) and secure the knowledge gained for future initiatives. This was also important to acknowledge and value the achievements of the TE. The handbook was an important instrument to not only enable knowledge transfer, but also mediate this intricate situation, which was indeed challenging for both practice and research partners.

Two TE teams of DCF, namely “Schools as Living Spaces Created Together” (SLS) and “District Funds and Councils for Sustainable and Active Neighbourhoods” (DF), wanted to conduct transfer workshops to foster interaction with their target group(s) and receive feedback on their handbook. The transfer workshops were, thus, designed by and based on the ideas of the TEs. The citizens adopted the role of the facilitator while the research partners provided support by providing feedback on the design of the transfer workshops and documenting the workshops. Further participants were people from the target group, for example, politicians, practitioners from the same field and public officials. The format sought to review and disseminate the findings of the TE by creating space for networking and dialogue. The workshops were conducted in person and lasted three to five hours.

The designs of the transfer workshops of SLS and DF were quite different. The latter workshop focused on a working session with pre-defined questions to receive critical feedback on the handbook and to design pathways for embedding long-term structures for district funds and councils in Dresden. The meeting was held in a municipal district office, thereby creating a more official atmosphere. It was facilitated by an external moderator to recognise power imbalances and encourage participation by all stakeholders. It started with a presentation of DF, followed by small group discussions to explore the motivations and potential strategies for embedding DF and concluded with a brief exchange to share the participants’ reflections (see Fig. 3). In contrast, SLS wanted a workshop which fostered formal and informal exchange between interregional participants from politics, public administration and school communities. The aim was to create a lively discussion on methods of co-designing schoolyards in a participatory manner. The workshop took the form of a moderated panel discussion with two mayors in the town hall, on-site excursions to different co-designed schoolyards, an input session on experiences with the co-design of schoolyards in Berlin and a group discussion (see Fig. 4).

Figure 3.  

Flashlight at the end of the DF transfer workshop; photo: Torsten Görg.

Figure 4.  

On-site excursion during the SLS transfer workshop; photo: Nicole Herzog.

As a result, the outputs of the two workshops differed: DF agreed on further working sessions at a local level to intensify the process of institutionalisation; SLS generated a documentation of the transfer workshop, identifying the unique qualities of the project examples and outlining outcomes from the panel discussion.*4 Both transfer workshops strengthened network-building, locally and/or interregionally.

Efficiency & Effectiveness: As practitioners have a double role as active participant and facilitator, it can be useful to hire an external moderator (who can also be the scientific facilitator). At the DF workshop, the external moderator guided the intense and open discussion efficiently, thereby ensuring that the DF project team could take an active part in the transfer workshop.

Active participation on equal terms: Create room for transdisciplinarity. In SLS, interests concerning the design of schoolyards diverged. Low-maintenance designs, the provision of parking space and a design complementary to the architecture of the building competed with the wish for natural environments with high biodiversity, which need more intensive care. To create space for a diverse discussion elucidating different perspectives, SLS invited politicians, teachers and landscape architects to their transfer workshop. During the whole project, more stakeholders were involved, for example, craftsmen and engaged parents. For a proper transfer workshop, it is best to invite all stakeholders involved to have a more fruitful discussion. This also helps to spread new ideas into further sectors.

On-site excursions can help promote a better understanding of the project and make its results visible and tangible, especially for projects where physical-material structures are changed (as was the case with SLS); they also make it easier for everybody to join the conversation and express their perceptions.

The moderator should set discussion rules to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to speak during a discussion. In DF, a public official tended to dominate the discussion. Of course, there are situations when one person is entitled to a larger share of the speaking time, for instance, when they are in a position of power (e.g. a politician discussing legal frameworks) or when questions relate to their field of expertise. Generally, however, when conducting a working session (such as in DF) where all opinions need to be equally heard, it is important to recognise power imbalances and to prevent individuals from dominating the discussion. In DF, the moderator interrupted the discussion and asked everyone to comply with the discussion rules.

Space for conflict mediation: When inviting people in a position of power, be sensitive towards the role they adopt during the workshop. For example, SLS invited two local mayors (responsible for the environment and education, respectively) to a panel discussion held during the transfer workshop. In general, it is important to reflect on why such persons are participating in the workshop and which particular aim(s) they might be pursuing (e.g. election campaign), as well as which potential interdependencies exist between them and the TE team. It is important that the TE team is aware of potential instrumentalisation and co-optation of its citizen engagement, which might lead to disempowerment. To resolve ambiguities, the role of those in a position of power must be clarified beforehand, as well as the nature of the workshop agenda (e.g. panel discussion, working session).

Create room for trust building and visioning. In DF, there was much scepticism and uncertainty regarding the potentials and pitfalls of introducing district funds and councils in other urban districts. While DF promise to strengthen democratic structures, local civic associations were sceptical if they could handle the workload of coordination and provide the legal and administrative expertise required for DF. Transfer workshops are always the beginning for further steps to implement the insights gained. As this is normally rather "virgin soil", the transfer workshop should encourage trust building and promote a culture of experimenting and learning-by-failing to explore new approaches. Accordingly, one participant stated: “You have to dare to step into the darkness”.*5

Adopt an evidence-based approach if empirical studies are available. In the discussion on the potentials and pitfalls, the empirical findings of the accompanying research were invoked to show how DF could strengthen community-building and identity-building within urban districts. This enhanced the legitimacy of the idea to establish DF in other urban districts.

While researchers adopt multiple roles in TDR (e.g. from reflective scientist to change agent) and seek to co-create sustainable futures, they need to maintain a neutral role and respect democratic processes if distributive conflicts emerge. Concerning the provision of finances for DF, there was a conflict of interest between the municipal district councils and the urban district councils (DF). The institutionalisation of DF was politically contested amongst different political parties and municipal district councils were critical of sharing their funds with DF. Even if a new funding guideline for DF were to be introduced, there would still be competition over funds from the local budget. Against this backdrop, the city council adopted the decision to increase funding for the municipal district councils in December 2022 and recommended to pass on these funds to DF, yet did not introduce a new funding guideline for DF.*6 Apart from providing empirical evidence on the impact of DF in urban districts, the researchers remained neutral observers of this debate before and after the transfer workshop.